There is a time for war and a time for peace

Sherry SufiThe West Australian

Thursday, 19 April 2018 2:44AM

Camera IconDamaged buildings in the town of Douma, the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack.Picture: Picture: AP

The idea that war is never necessary is as crazy as the idea that war is always necessary. War is sometimes necessary. What’s for certain is, trying to set up democracies in the Middle East through war has proved to be a disaster. Oddly, the most stable countries in the region are monarchies: UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Europe toppled its monarchies: the Bourbons, the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs among others. But only when there was significant internal dissatisfaction and will to act. The Middle East may or may not go down the same path. Time will tell.

The English Civil War ended one form of authoritarian rule, only to end up replacing it with another authoritarian ruler, Oliver Cromwell. The French Revolution did the same. The fall of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette led to a power vacuum that was eventually seized by dictator Napoleon Bonaparte.

Who would’ve thought, two centuries later George W. Bush’s removal of Saddam Hussein would leave Iraq in even greater turmoil and bloodshed. NATO and the Obama administration’s violent ousting of Muammar Gaddafi hasn’t left Libya better off either.

Time and again, history sends us a reminder: a system premised on consensus will only survive where there is consensus about the system itself. Democracy works best when it’s found from within. Not when it’s shoved down people’s throats. Still, it doesn’t deliver stability overnight. During the 1990s, the default view in the American establishment was that America must take whatever military action necessary to maintain its global hegemony, or the “rules-based world order” as it’s often called.

When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, for the first time since the Vietnam War, anti-war sentiments became a defining feature of Western politics.

Rudd in 2007 and Obama in 2008 won with promises to bring the troops home. By 2010, anti-war sentiments had reached far beyond the political Left and began penetrating the Right with Republican congressman Ron Paul becoming a vocal critic. The rise of the “alt-right” has left another fracture on the right, breaking away from the neo-conservative approach of America as the world’s policeman.

International inspectors have been given access to the site, 10 days after the suspected chemical attack

The West Australian

VideoInternational inspectors have been given access to the site, 10 days after the suspected chemical attack

As a Republican candidate, Donald Trump capitalised on this appetite in his 2016 campaign criticising rivals during the primaries for “wanting to start World War III” over Syria. Trump lambasted Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton for supporting the Iraq war assuring he was against it “from the very beginning”. Yet as American President, Trump is the one ordering air strikes against Syria. Apart from showing the world he’s prepared to stick it to Russia and its allies, these air strikes achieve nothing.

Bashar al-Assad is not a religious fundamentalist, but a secular leader. As a member of the Alawite religious minority, he has shown regard for the Christian minorities of Syria, many of them the world’s only native speakers of Aramaic, the language of Jesus.

Obama arming rebels against Assad was disastrous. They were never acting in the interests of the West. Break away factions teamed up with insurgents across the Iraq border to form Islamic State. Now that Islamic State is neutralised, current intervention is not in our interests.

Wars cost millions to taxpayers, result in mass casualties, end up replacing secular dictators with religious fanatics and bring a flood of refugees to the West who struggle to integrate. Worse yet, wars leave the families of our soldiers permanently mourning.

Whoever thinks that repeated air strikes in Syria, let alone a full-blown war, is a smart idea must think again. Escalating this conflict into a potential nuclear showdown with Russia is the last thing the world needs.

Besides, if we began going to war against every regime that supposedly oppresses its own people, then half the continent of Africa would stand in need of Western intervention. The humanitarian crimes against South African farmers currently under way are just one confronting example.

There’s a time and place for military action. At the moment, the case against Syria isn’t compelling. America and its allies should stay out of it. That includes us. As the successful fight against Islamic State has shown, there are times when intervention is in our national interests. Fighting Assad is not.

Sherry Sufi is chairman of the WA Liberal Party’s policy committee. He holds a bachelor of arts (Philosophy), master of arts (Politics and International Studies) and master of history. The views expressed in this column are his own.